File talk:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg
This image was the subject of at least one reviews (kept). Also one review where it was deleted. Brought to deletion review. Then brought back. If this image is ever moved to Commons (or reconsidered for deletion), then the history should please be looked at. Somehow in all the kerfuffle, the info is not showing...but it is in the belly of the beast.TCO (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Move to commons discussion
[edit]
This file was kept at PUF last year, deleted this January, and then that decision was overturned in March. The OTRS ticket for this image is Ticket:2011030910014184, and I believe that the image should be moved to commons because it is verified in the public domain. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. It has been complicated enough. Commons does not do well with images that have a lot of questions and confusion. I predict a likely deletion that does not even look at previous community debate and results.TCO (reviews needed) 15:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm leaving the 3O request up since I can't provide a solution, but I would recommend contacting one of the copyright experts (Fastily, Moonriddengirl, or VernoWhitney, for example) about this file. They will probably be able to give a more knowledgeable response than most people, and I don't think they look at WP:3O. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- At this point, it seems the main concern with moving the file to Commons is something about "mangling history". Let me remind everyone that practices applied to articles do not apply to files; there is little need to preserve the file description page's history in a to-Commons transfer. The only thing that must be retained is attribution information, i.e., the original author(s)/copyright holder(s) of the work must be cited. That said, I see no reason for this file not to be moved to Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- The concern I have is preserving the record of previous deletion discussions. For one thing, before I kicked up a fuss, the OTRS was not even on there. If someone chooses to renom it for deletion (which is fine by the way, here or there), we should at least benefit if anything worthwhile was expressed before. TCO (reviews needed) 01:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- The "What links here" page for this image should allow anyone to locate those discussions – the file's name isn't going to change. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- If they choose to research that sure. Or file name based searches could find it. But it's not a normal step in deletions discussions to do that. Would be better if these previous things were listed on the page somehow. Like the OTRS is now (but wasn't before).TCO (reviews needed) 02:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- The "What links here" page for this image should allow anyone to locate those discussions – the file's name isn't going to change. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- The concern I have is preserving the record of previous deletion discussions. For one thing, before I kicked up a fuss, the OTRS was not even on there. If someone chooses to renom it for deletion (which is fine by the way, here or there), we should at least benefit if anything worthwhile was expressed before. TCO (reviews needed) 01:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- At this point, it seems the main concern with moving the file to Commons is something about "mangling history". Let me remind everyone that practices applied to articles do not apply to files; there is little need to preserve the file description page's history in a to-Commons transfer. The only thing that must be retained is attribution information, i.e., the original author(s)/copyright holder(s) of the work must be cited. That said, I see no reason for this file not to be moved to Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm leaving the 3O request up since I can't provide a solution, but I would recommend contacting one of the copyright experts (Fastily, Moonriddengirl, or VernoWhitney, for example) about this file. They will probably be able to give a more knowledgeable response than most people, and I don't think they look at WP:3O. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
